D&D 5E Calibration of single character skill checks

[Charlaquin]

we are using 5e table, ofc.

I meant to say, difficulty category spread by 5 works for 3e but does not for 5e, as skill bonus growth is much slower.
In 3e you gain +5(so you have equal chance to succeed on a category higher DC) every 5 levels, and in 5e every 20 levels.(or 10 for expertise).

also they boosted "easy" from DC 0 to DC 5. If "average Joe" fails a task 1 in 5 times then it is not really easy.

Easy is DC 10, friend. Which is why I say it’s not named based on “average Joe,” even if it’s calibrated based on his chances of success.

 

[Lyxen]

Exactly. A character with a 10 fails at a DC 10 check 45% of the time. The word Easy does not accurately describe something you have barely better than a coin flip’s chance of succeeding at. The DCs may be calibrated based on wanting a completely untrained person to have that success rate, but I believe their names are relative to a character with a bit more training than that.

It's a good point, and I think I see your perspective, but remember that these represent tasks which have a chance of actual failure, it's not a question of amount of effort and length of time for example. If a task is "hard' because it takes some effort but everyone can more or less succeed if they spend in the amount of time, then it's an autosuccess, it does not require a DC and a roll.

There is also the notion of stress in there, things might be very easy and people under stress might still fail because of uncontrolled emotion for example.

So I agree that the average joe still fails 1 in 5 at something "very easy", but it looks about right to me considering that these are stressful no-retry circumstances with consequences if you fail.

 

[robus]

I would say that if a check has been called for then we’ve left “easy” behind. I agree that it‘s poor choice of words to describe the DC, but it’s not obvious what would be better. “good chance of success” is a bit clumsy

 

[Lyxen]

I would say that if a check has been called for then we’ve left “easy” behind. I agree that it‘s poor choice of words to describe the DC, but it’s not obvious what would be better. “good chance of success” is a bit clumsy

I'm not sure I follow you here. Just look at leaping across a chasm. If might be a short distance, but it's much more scary than jumping on flat ground, and you are being pursued by orcs. You only have one try, and there are dire consequences of failure. Technically, it might be a very easy jump, but because of the no-retry and consequences, you still need to roll...

 

[Blue]

None of the above?

IMO, I think it would be a disservice to recommend "most common" DCs for ability checks in 5e. The DC should squarely be something the DM calibrates based on the approach and goal of the PC as presented by the player. That is, assuming there is an uncertain outcome and a meaningful consequence for failure of said approach and goal. I do like the suggested DCs for using tools presented in Xanathar's - and I think those are examples that aligns nicely with the PC's approach and goal.

That said, I believe there should be some guidance in the DMG - by way of example - on how/why to set easy (10), medium (15), or hard (20) DCs. DMG pg 238 does a reasonable job of starting this but strangely abdicates ultimate authority to the adventures. So many of the DCs presented in the published adventures, meanwhile, are there to... facilitate rolling dice? That is to say that some (most?) of these DCs exist with no meaningful consequence of failure (i.e. nothing happens) which flies in the face of the rules presented on DMG pg 237. What's is really the point of rolling in those cases?

So, not trying to derail your poll, just coming at this from a completely different angle at our table.

Okay, you are writing a module. Where do you put the DCs?

Or better yet, please read the example and give one fo those recommendations to the DM to calibrate it - do they calibrate that their superstar can often get the DC but still fail regularly, or that someone focusing so much shoudl pass almost all the time?

Please contribute positively to the thread.

 

[R_J_K75]

I think, considering bounded accuracy,

Is bounded accuracy ever ecxplained in the 3 core books regarding concept and how it works? IDR seeing it.

 

[Lyxen]

Is bounded accuracy ever ecxplained in the 3 core books regarding concept and how it works? IDR seeing it.

No, but it does not need to, the game is self-explanatory when you take it at face value (bonusses rise very slowly, and lots of things don't stack, AC uses only one computation method at a time, etc.). The problem is mostly for people coming from previous editions where DCs where supposed to go up with level and trying to replicate this in 5e. So actually there is very good reason not to enter in explanations in the 5e books themselves, because it would just complicate them for no inherent reasons whatsoever.

It's true that people coming in from other editions should read a bit about it, and explanation is available all over the net.

 

[clearstream]

For the record, I believe the answer is that in 5e it’s relative to a 1st-4th level character with either a 14-17 in the relevant ability and no relevant proficiency, or a 10-13 in the relevant ability and a relevant proficiency, acting alone. And I also think that is exactly who it ought to be relative to in 5e. So I would vote checking the first and fourth box in the poll.

I think you are right that the game designers used something like that yardstick. Based on scanty clues from the PHB and DMG, in my campaign I assume there are "skilled" and "untrained" levels or bands below 1st. Skilled creatures have proficiency +1 and +1 modifier in an ability relevant to their occupation. Untrained have +0 and no modifier, or worse.

For day-to-day checks, skilled and many untrained creatures can just take 10, so easy means they can't really fail. A sailor for instance, can't really fail to dock their boat - they just take 10. Medium they need to roll for. Hard is genuinely pretty hard. Some of them - with outstanding talent - can achieve very hard DCs.

Characters above 1st tier are then all quite far above that, dealing with the exceptional - DCs that might well start with hard and go up from there. For it to be worth rolling, a DC must be set with their most competent member, with all aid necessary, in mind.


[EDIT So DCs are described from a constant viewpoint, but the ones a DM should use have a different yardstick.]

 

[clearstream]

Exactly. A character with a 10 fails at a DC 10 check 45% of the time. The word Easy does not accurately describe something you have barely better than a coin flip’s chance of succeeding at. The DCs may be calibrated based on wanting a completely untrained person to have that success rate, but I believe their names are relative to a character with a bit more training than that.

They take 10, if it is genuinely easy.

 

[Charlaquin]

I would say that if a check has been called for then we’ve left “easy” behind. I agree that it‘s poor choice of words to describe the DC, but it’s not obvious what would be better. “good chance of success” is a bit clumsy

Is 55% really a good chance of success though? I don’t think it is. Now, if you have proficiency and/or a bit of a bonus to the ability, we get up around 65-70% chance of success. I think “easy” is a pretty decent descriptor for such a task.